and Slash Hudson your correct, the upper fret access on the SG is amazing, its the only thing the sg's have over the les pauls

Jarrott

01-24-2006, 11:13 PM

I'd take an SG to a Les Paul anyday. I find LP's to be really clunky and comfort is a big asset to me. The SG feels great in my hands, better then any guitar has ever felt. The body contours to yours and just fits so nicely, I just love it. Plus the sound of an SG... oh my.

tubadude

01-24-2006, 11:46 PM

the one thing i dont like about SG's is that they pivot when you are standing up (those with SG's knwo what im talking about) other than that, i love them. i would get one over a LP anyday (unless i get this 1964 LP for 500 dollars)

Mui

01-25-2006, 12:41 AM

I'd take an SG to a Les Paul anyday. I find LP's to be really clunky and comfort is a big asset to me. The SG feels great in my hands, better then any guitar has ever felt. The body contours to yours and just fits so nicely, I just love it. Plus the sound of an SG... oh my.

Same here. I find Les Pauls overrated. :cheers:

Essentiale

01-25-2006, 02:53 AM

^ agreed...overrated stuff.

piecies_81

01-25-2006, 06:16 AM

The weight of the SG's isnt balanced very well, If you let go of the neck, it drops to the ground. and the strap button is on the back of the body and tends to slip off quite a bit, Unless you use strap locks. You also have to reach out farther to get to the low frets as compared to the LP, but then again the high frets are wide open on the SG and easy to access. Its all about prefrence i guess. I would choose LP's over SG's anyday. To me the SG is better at AC/DC style rather then the LP. Also, the SG gives me sore nipples when I sit and pay it cuz the horn rubs right across my upper chest. And yes, I own and play both of them, so I have a clue.

tim_mop

01-25-2006, 06:30 AM

i tried les paul and SG but i had to go for the les paul, the tone seemed so much better if you want a balance of rythem and lead

Revhain

01-25-2006, 06:51 AM

In all honesty, I've found the Les Paul to be too heavy, and too fat a neck. The SG was far too light, comfortable neck but it felt like I was playing a wafer.

They both had an incredible sound though.

narmi

01-25-2006, 08:47 AM

LP>SG imo

I really don't like the look of SGs, they sound great but I'd pick an LP over an SG any day.

seanbaby

01-25-2006, 09:19 PM

hey asshat i own an SG, and ive played les paul countless times, i would choose a les paul over my sg anyday so now go sit in the corner and cry

and Slash Hudson your correct, the upper fret access on the SG is amazing, its the only thing the sg's have over the les pauls

hmm should have expected the usual opinionated arguing with sg's and paul's....

JimmyPageSlash

01-25-2006, 09:34 PM

les paul....

Waterboy799

01-26-2006, 12:47 AM

hmm should have expected the usual opinionated arguing with sg's and paul's....

dam right :p:

tony_dyp26

01-26-2006, 12:50 AM

Les Pauls are heavier than SG's, SG have easier access to higher frets so you could solo easily, while Les Pauls don't

Waterboy799

01-26-2006, 12:55 AM

but les pauls have better tone, better sustain, it looks better, and there much more comfortable imo

BottleOfSmoke

01-26-2006, 02:14 AM

i prefer the SG Shape to the LP

love_O_rock

01-26-2006, 02:53 PM

Figures that NOW its not "get what feels right", but every other thats usually the case. Damn Gibson!!! Deciding between a Les Pual and an SG is like deciding between Pam Anderson And Carmen Electra. :D

Gabel

01-26-2006, 03:23 PM

Well i love em both. And techicly both of them are Les Paul's (did a work abotu the Gibson les Paul), the Sg was the 1961 Les Paul model, but Les Paul didnt like it. So they took back the old LP design and renamed the "new" Les Paul's to (listen to the fantasy): Solidbody Guitar (Sg for short). But anyway i love them both. I love the big chunky sound of the Les Paul and the fat 59' neck. But i love the lighwieght Sg, and anytime i hear AC/DC i almost get an an hearing orgasm when i hear Angus' s SG. And even if i love the sound of the Les Paul ive always wanted an SG. But i read that the SG Standard has a rounded neck profile, is it close to the 59' neck profile? Where gonna move and that will make us rich. So im probably gonna try to convince my parents to buy me an SG. Either the Standard or the 61 Reissue. Wich would you recommend?

seanbaby

01-26-2006, 04:22 PM

try them out in a guitar store i guess. they have different pickups so pick the one that you like best?

gibsonsg2006

01-26-2006, 04:29 PM

lol ive heard this question before and i think tht an SG has a lighter sound than a LP. Les Pauls have a big, meaty sound, and SGs do not.

Gabel

01-26-2006, 04:50 PM

try them out in a guitar store i guess. they have different pickups so pick the one that you like best?

Hmm, true. But there is a problem. I live in Sweden, so i'll be lucky if they even have a Standard that you can try (and that i can reach and so on). But im leanng alot towards the stabdard, wich is said to be good. I have also tried a Standard, but it was thru a Vox AD30VT with low volume. But then again i have treid a Gibson LP studio thru my amp (same pups) and that sound is great. Plus that i love Angus sound on the AC/DC live album (were he plays a Standard SG, with stock pups). I love the feel of it so i thibk ill buy it soon (probably around April).

Waterboy799

01-26-2006, 05:02 PM

well i have a standard, it has a thicker neck, and not as good pickups as the 61 reissue has a thinner neck and better pickups. i perfer the thicker neck on the standard, but the pickups on the 61 are better, you decide which one u want.

_Clayman

01-26-2006, 05:04 PM

my SG has everything I could possibly want in a heavy music tool

It has great, thick tone, lots of bite and attack, and it's really comfortable to play.

Les Paul's are fine guitars but they just don't sing like an SG does in my ears. P.S. The necks on the two are almost the same

Waterboy799

01-26-2006, 05:06 PM

no there not, the neck on the 61 reissue i a 60's slim taper neck, the one on the standard is a 50's rounded neck.

seanbaby

01-26-2006, 06:59 PM

Hmm, true. But there is a problem. I live in Sweden, so i'll be lucky if they even have a Standard that you can try (and that i can reach and so on). But im leanng alot towards the stabdard, wich is said to be good. I have also tried a Standard, but it was thru a Vox AD30VT with low volume. But then again i have treid a Gibson LP studio thru my amp (same pups) and that sound is great. Plus that i love Angus sound on the AC/DC live album (were he plays a Standard SG, with stock pups). I love the feel of it so i thibk ill buy it soon (probably around April).

whoa...sweden! yep, i would go with the standard. its cheaper and im guessing the 61's not worth the extra 500. follow your heart! :cool:

Gabel

01-27-2006, 07:52 PM

^And since i love teh look of it and the neck i think it would do me well. I havent heard 57 Classic HB's but the 490R and 498T sounded great on an LP Studio, they shoudl work for me.

The Holy Man

01-27-2006, 09:55 PM

it really depends on what you want to use the guitar for. the les paul is a much warmer tone (and personally i like the look of them better) where as the Sg is sharper in it's sound. all this busness about upper fret access problems i think is reduculous, i have never had a problem geting to any of the frets on my guitar(which though not a les paul has the same body shape)

rhcp_9106

01-27-2006, 10:26 PM

Their both gibsons so they're both ****ing amazing, but in my opinion the Les Pauls are much better. I'm the lead guitarist for my band and I don't really mind the thick tone quality, I just adjust the parameters alot. SG's are also great, and they're also much lighter so they're much easier to use live. But all around, the Les Paul is my preference.

colen

01-27-2006, 10:29 PM

^^^ i have heard a few not soo good gibsons before soo not all of them are ****ing amazing.

and im with you.... les pauls are pretty awsome IMO

V12prowler

01-27-2006, 10:52 PM

the wood is one of the main differences

are you high.......they are both mahogany........the only difference is the maple top on the paul........

i dont really like les pauls too much right now, mainly becuase of gibsons quality issue, but Agiles are great....SG's feel to thin, like i could break it over my knee, i like a nice, solid strat or superstrat.......

Waterboy799

01-27-2006, 11:29 PM

are you high.......they are both mahogany........the only difference is the maple top on the paul........

so then wouldnt the difference be the maple on the les paul and no maple on the sg? :rolleyes:

mexican_shred

01-27-2006, 11:43 PM

Water boy is right again. Also the quality of the woods are very differnt.

tabgod14

03-08-2006, 01:08 PM

the wood wouldn't make a big differnce if they were both the same type of wood.

edg

03-08-2006, 03:13 PM

If you like an SG get an SG. If you like an LP get an LP. Same for anything...

Is an LP worth it? Is any guitar worth it?

IMO, if you spend anything over a few hundred on a guitar it's just a fetish (I
have a fetish).

I nice $300 dollar guitar will do 99% of what a much more expensive one will. If
your playing sucks on the cheap guitar, I can pretty much guarantee it will on
an expensive one. If you can play well, you'll sound good on either one.

I can't play any better on my $200 Ibanez than my $8000 Gibson.

There are a FEW guitars that have that extra-special feel to them. But for the
most part the assembly-line Gibson's, PRS's, Fender's... all have the same range
of play feel as my cheap Ibanez (and I don't mean that in a bad way). In
general its just preference.

So really, it just boils down to ONE thing: is it worth it to YOU?

blues_rocker

03-08-2006, 03:58 PM

Les Paul>SG IMO

timi_hendrix

03-08-2006, 04:02 PM

I love every aspect of SGs, although LPs can take more abuse.

But yeah, I'm an SG man.

Waterboy799

03-08-2006, 04:28 PM

the wood wouldn't make a big differnce if they were both the same type of wood.

that made no sense at all, wood does make a huge difference in the sound of a guitar. mahogany + maple > plain mahogany

a lp would sound way to thick and bassy with all mahogany, thats why they added maple to balance out the tones

sgaxman123

06-18-2006, 10:58 PM

i like les pauls and sgs but i prefer the sg. its a lot lighter so its better for those guitar players who like to run around and jump off the amps. it also has better fret acces.

sgaxman123

06-18-2006, 11:08 PM

^ agreed...overrated stuff.
^agreed sgs rock

Mikelikesit

06-18-2006, 11:48 PM

SG s are way way way better than les pauls, ftw!
edit:well I guess ^ agreed, would have done it but w/e

TimmyPage06

06-18-2006, 11:57 PM

For some reason.. I dont like Gibson Les Pauls.. I mean, I love the look, but they feel like dirt to me, and I have played ALOT of them, only a few I really liked the feel of (I looove the feel of my Epiphone Les Paul though.. wierd huh?).

With gibsons, I prefer the SG, feels comfy-er, and a nicer neck (once again, i've played ALOT of them)